Matt McGrath Is The New Black

The BBC told the Science and Technology Committee that…..’Climate change is “a matter of reporting and journalistic inquiry, and one where our strong reputation for independence is paramount”.’

However…….David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC, told them that “politicians driving an issue and talking about its importance and policy developments in relation to it will be clearly important to our news agenda”

So politicians are driving the news agenda…regardless of the science?

It does look like that….see the interview with Andrew Miller, Labour MP below.

The BBC always tell us, as indeed it does above, that its independence is paramount.

Just how does the BBC square that with the implication we get from the Science and Technology Committee’s report that the BBC is just the voice of government peddling their climate propaganda….‘politicians driving the news agenda’?

The Committee is clearly tryng to control how the BBC reports on climate change and demands that it makes itself available to push the green message….to adopt ‘collective responsibility’ for ‘persuading’ the Public to accept climate change is man made and sacrifices have to be made.

The Committee has evidence that the BBC et al can be a vital component in that battle for hearts and minds…and wallets…..

“The media have an enormous impact on behaviour and belief” and forms “the key source of information, especially the BBC, for what people believe on almost any issue you want to name”. With regards to climate change the most referred to single source of information (58%) was TV news, usually the BBC…..”TV news was the most cited source of information on climate science”.

Shame the BBC says…….

‘Although we do not have specific evidence of climate change itself, the BBC’s audiences expect it to deliver high-quality programming that is informative and educational about science in general and, therefore, about climate change in particular.’ David Jordan the BBC’s Director of Editorial Policy

The report states….

The BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight.

Yes……much of the global warming ‘science’ reported by the BBC is merely pure opinion, dogma or theory based on computer models, self delusion and wishful thinking.

Just how good was the BBC’s reporting? Well Andrew Miller, Labour MP and chair of the Science and Technology Committee, said there was a ‘Fantastic piece by Matt McGrath…world class piece of reporting.’…of course McGrath, the ‘new Black’, force fed us an unadulterated version of the IPCC’s uber alarmism.
Miller was interviewed on the Today programme (08:35)….some highlights of which are below……

Miller tells us that there needs to be a ‘collective responsibility’ to get the message of climate change across to the public…..that is a joint effort by politicians, scientists and the media.

People who are unwilling to accept climate change is real have attitudes which are unhelpful to getting that message out.

Climate change (man made), he tells us, is one of the biggest challenges facing the planet at the present time.

False balance….there is an overwhelming amount of science that supports the climate change case….and the BBC should not provide sceptics with so much airtime and should label them as having vested interests….but he doesn’t require the same disclosure for the so-called ‘experts’.

David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC, said ‘We seek to avoid equal time and status for scientists and non scientists.’

Evan Davis solely talked of sceptics as ‘non-experts’ or ‘non-scientists’.

Miller tries to label sceptics as having an agenda with vested interests…describing them as ‘not disinterested parties and lobbyists who should be labelled as such.‘

Evan Davis asks…How often is the BBC guilty of providing such a platform to sceptics?

Miller claims ‘It happens consistently in the climate change debate.’

Jordan then states that….’Such interviews [As with Nigel Lawson] are not typical of the BBC’s coverage of climate change…there is a huge amount of output by the BBC devoted to this subject based on an acceptance that climate change is happening.‘

The trouble is that isn’t what Jordan told the Committee, as they report:

David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC, was less emphatic on the status of the science, stating that:

The BBC believes that it has an important role to play in explaining climate science, climate change and global warming, if that is what is happening, to its audiences. All our evidence is that, although we do not have specific evidence of climate change itself, the BBC’s audiences expect it to deliver high-quality programming that is informative and educational about science in general and, therefore, about climate change in particular.[81]
Although, later in the evidence session, he seemed less sceptical:There are now very few people who say that no global warming is happening and it is not the result of man-made activity, but the debate has moved on to the precise ranges and all sorts of other questions

So the BBC, despite having no specific evidence of climate change, has gone on to produce a ‘huge output….devoted to this subject based on an acceptance that climate change is happening.‘

‘One of the world’s top public intellectuals, a titan of post-war science working outside mainstream scientific institutions coming up with some of the most original ideas of our time.‘

Note that ‘working outside mainstream scientific institutions’…..not of the ‘consensus’ then? And yet still a ‘Titan of post-war science’!

And what did Lovelock have to say?

James Lovelock:Take this climate matter everybody is thinking about. They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses.

And what about vested interests?

Jeremy Paxman:It follows from [what you‘ve said] , does it not, that this panel on climate change which has, as you point out, vested interests involved, may be just as likely or even more likely to make mistakes?

Richard Tol of Sussex University, in Britain, disparagingly appraised the report’s conclusions as “the four horsemen of the apocalypse”. The final version appears to have been fought over paragraph and comma between those (such as Dr Tol) who want to describe dispassionately what they think is happening and those who want to scare the world into taking action.

And what of the latest report? The Economist notes that it breaks with the previous dogma….

A new way of looking at the climate for both scientists and policymakers. Until now, many of them have thought of the climate as a problem like no other: its severity determined by meteorological factors, such as the interaction between clouds, winds and oceans; not much influenced by “lesser” problems, like rural development; and best dealt with by trying to stop it (by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions). The new report breaks with this approach. It sees the climate as one problem among many, the severity of which is often determined by its interaction with those other problems. And the right policies frequently try to lessen the burden—to adapt to change, rather than attempting to stop it. In that respect, then, this report marks the end of climate exceptionalism and the beginning of realism.

In other words it lines up with what George Bush used to promote (and be derided for by the likes of Justin Webb) and Lawson does now….adaption and acceptance of change.

But Lawson is apparently unacceptable as a commentator on climate change.

Miller and the Green lobby relentlessly try to paint the GWPF and the likes of Nigel Lawson as some kind of extremist anti-science group funded by secretive industrial barons seeking to undermine the saviours of the Planet….but what does the GWPF really think?The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled. On climate science, our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism. Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.

And what about anyone else who cares, or dares, to raise a question or two about the ‘science’?

Are they qualified or able to understand the science?

Dr Emily Shuckburgh who published the report titled Climate Science, the Public and the News Media in 2012,[39] believed that there was an appetite for more information and that:

“many non expert members of the public do have a wide ranging and subtle understanding of climate change, are able to grasp new concepts, and are willing to engage in debate”

‘Willing to engage in debate’….but the likes of Miller only want to debate with those who already believe…in other words no debate at all.

Despite allegations that they are tantamount to “flat earthers,” a study published Sunday in the Nature Climate Change journal indicates that climate change skeptics actually tend to have a slightly higher level of general scientific knowledge than those who believe in the theory.

Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it.

Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change.

But of course people like Miller see no contradiction in the fact that he himself feels able to speak ‘expertly’ about climate or that a BBC journalist like McGrath can be ‘fantastic and world class’….purely because he produces what Miller approves of in the way of climate propaganda.

So how qualified is Miller or any politician?

Dr Sarah Wollaston, Conservative MP for Totnes. Interviewed before she was elected, said: ‘I just don’t think that there are enough people in Westminster who can read a scientific paper.’

Miller is not a scientist, and definitley not a climate change scientist:

He went on to study at the London School of Economics where he was awarded a diploma in industrial relations in 1977. He worked initially as a laboratory technician at the Department of Geology at Portsmouth Polytechnic……In 2010 Miller was confirmed as the first Chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee

Originally from Tipperary in Ireland, Matt edited computer magazines for several years before joining BBC Radio 5 live at its launch in 1994. Following stints as producer and reporter, Matt became the station’s science specialist in 1997.

And the IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri? A railway engineer.

Lord Stern?.…an economist.

The bumptious Bob Ward? A geology graduate who works now as a green PR guru for a multi-millionaire businessman who said:

“Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.” Jeremy Grantham….Bob Ward’s boss and also that of Lord Stern.

I could go on and on…..but if we are to label all those who are interviewed on the BBC I’d be quite happy with that…I somehow doubt the green lobbyists would be quite so happy as they realise their charade and fraudulent posturing is exposed.

But should ‘non-scientists’ be denied a voice….especially when discussing policies designed to combat global warming or actions to adapt to such a scenario?

The Guardian tells us:

We took a strategic decision about five years ago that, looking at the swathe of opinion in the scientific literature and the voices of people like the Royal Society and so on, this was a major scientific issue, with potentially profound societal and economic consequences.

There is far greater emphasis to adapting to the impacts of climate in this new summary. The problem, as ever, is who foots the bill?“It is not up to IPCC to define that,” said Dr Jose Marengo, a Brazilian government official who attended the talks. “It provides the scientific basis to say this is the bill, somebody has to pay, and with the scientific grounds it is relatively easier now to go to the climate negotiations in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and start making deals about who will pay for adaptation.”

So the IPCC’s ‘science’ is providng the basis for many countries to try and claim massive payouts from those they would like to blame for climate change….and we know who the BBC labels as to blame…..the West….

The scientific case is strengthening: developed countries are to blame for global warming – and there will soon be a legal reckoning

Would you enjoy the cosiness and warmth of Christmas with your children or grandchildren just that little bit less if you knew that other people’s children were dying because of it? More than four million children under five years old are now at risk of acute malnutrition in the Sahel, an area of the world that is one of the clearest victims of the rich world’s addiction to fossil fuels.

That sort of attitude is why genuine debate about what is causing climate change is so important with far reaching consequences.

Climate is political….the science is irrelevant for many….it is now used to promote a political agenda that aims to undermine the West and reduce it to poverty and decline…..

The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
……Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
…….We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
…….These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’.

Lack of appropriate training for news editors may be an issue. The importance of their role was explained by David Jordan who told us “editors of individual programmes (whether news or otherwise) are responsible for fact checking their content before it is aired”. [Lack of training?….all those secret seminars designed by Harrabin toconvince BBC editors and programme makers to adopt the green agenda and insert the propaganda into their programmes…all wasted?]This lack of distinction within BBC News between proven scientific facts and opinions or beliefs is problematic. The BBC editorial guidelines include guidance on accuracy. These were also referred to by David Jordan in evidence to us. However, these state “accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth”.

The BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight. BBC guidelines have stringent requirements for the coverage of politicians and political parties. For example, any proposal to invite politicians to contribute to non-political output must be referred to the Chief Advisor Politics. The BBC could benefit from applying a similarly stringent approach when interviewing non-experts on controversial scientific topics such as climate change.

“If you want to introduce behavioural change in relation to climate change and you want to alter what people do […] you must take the public with you”.

Improving understanding is important to ensuring effective policy implementation.

James Painter…There is agreement that it [the Media] has a “huge role in setting the agenda for what people talk or think about”.[48] He also explained that the media plays a crucial role in public knowledge of science: In the specific area of science coverage, most people in the UK get their information from the media, so the way the media report and frame climate change is one significant input into public understanding of the topic.

[James Painter…ex BBC….One of the BBC’s main climate change propagandists, James Painter…What it underlines yet again is that BBC staff are up their gills in the political process of disseminating alarmism; the fact that Mr Painter (aided and abetted by the unbiquitous Richard Black) has written this report is proof positive that his main concern, as the Cancun phase of the climate alarmism approaches, is to affect greenie change by propaganda.]

Genuine scepticism should be embraced by the climate science community. Dogma on either side of the debate should be revealed as such.

To achieve the necessary commitment from the public to climate policy, the Government must demonstrate a coherent approach to communicating both the scientific basis and the proposed solutions.

Relying heavily on scientists as the most prominent voice, has a resulted in a vacuum that has allowed inaccurate arguments to flourish with little effective challenge.

We are very disappointed by the heavy reliance that the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph place on the ability of their readers to distinguish between fact and opinion on climate science. This is especially the case because opinion pieces about climate science in these publications are frequently based on factual inaccuracies which go unchallenged.

[Says who? Richard Black does, former BBC Correspondent, he was critical of the coverage in the Mail on Sunday and the ‘regular inaccuracies’ that appeared:This is something that TheMail on Sunday clearly does not have a problem with because it has done it many times before. Complaints have been submitted and mistakes pointed out, and the same thing carries on happening. Whether one wants to see that as part of a polarised or increasingly variegated media landscape, or see it in terms of a political game, depends on how one looks at it.]

James Painter told us that despite “lots of evidence that people distinguish between news and opinion” what worried him was the finding in his research that “that there is an awful lot of uncontested sceptical opinion in the opinion pieces and editorials in much of the right-leaning press”.

We acknowledge the difficulty for broadcasters in maintaining coverage of climate change when the basic facts are established and the central story remains the same. We consider it vital, however, that they continue to do so. Our greatest concern is about the BBC given the high level of trust the public has in its coverage. It did not convince us that it had a clear understanding of the information needs of its audience.

We recommend that the BBC should develop clear editorial guidelines for all commentators and presenters on the facts of climate that should be used to challenge statements, from either side of the climate policy debate, that stray too far from the scientific facts. Public service broadcasters should be held to a higher standard than other broadcasters.

This is not to say that non-scientists should be excluded from the debate, the BBC has the responsibility to reflect all views and opinions in society and it is worth remembering that not all frauds and mistakes in science have been uncovered by scientists. Where time is available for careful consideration and discussion of the facts, it should be possible to explore more detailed consideration of where the science is less certain, such as how feedback mechanisms and climate sensitivity influence the response of the climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists, politicians, lobbying groups and other interested parties should be heard on this issue but the BBC should be clear on what role its interviewees have and should be careful not to treat lobbying groups as disinterested experts.The BBC said….Climate change is “a matter of reporting and journalistic inquiry, and one where our strong reputation for independence is paramount”.

David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBCtold us that “politicians driving an issue and talking about its importance and policy developments in relation to it will be clearly important to our news agenda”.[61] James Randerson, of the Guardian, explained that “from an editor’s point of view, if politicians are talking about it, we report it. It gives us something to report, so if politicians are not talking about it there is one fewer source of stories”.[62] Professor Philo also emphasised the role of politicians in ensuring a subject receives coverage because politicians “are seen as opinion leaders; they are what media specialists […] would call primary definers”.

Submissions to our inquiry commented on a tendency for the media to approach climate science as an argument about two equally valid points of view, rather than discussion about scientific facts, and on the false balance of views being presented as a consequence. Professor Pidgeon questioned whether the “norm of ensuring balanced reporting […] is appropriate where the scientific evidence is so overwhelming”.[68]When questioned about the balance of views in the media, Sir Mark Walport told us that climate change “is not a matter for opinion or belief. It is a matter of fact whether humans are altering the climate or not. There is a correct answer to this question”.

David Kennedy, Chief Executive of the Committee on Climate Change told us “someone needs to take charge of the story” and “we can provide a story, and we aim to do that […] but in terms of cascading and multiplying that narrative there has to be an important role for the Government. There is more that both central and local government can do once there is a story”

We were told that “confusion between the science and the politics bedevils the public dialogue” and that “the profound policy implications of climate change mean that public discussion often constitutes policy debate masquerading as science”. [211]ClimateXChange, the research group that advises the Scottish Government on climate change issues, told us why, in their view, communicating about climate change had become so complicated: Climate change is a politicised debate involving conflicting interests and challenging societal and individual habits. The discourse on climate change is complicated by difficulties in communication between science, policy, the media and the public. There is space for miscommunication, resistance and politicisation at any stage of the discourse.[212]

54 Responses to Matt McGrath Is The New Black

Ooh, nice one Alan. I’ve just cut and pasted into the Radio Devon facebook page the bit about: Although we do not have specific evidence of climate change itself, the BBC’s audiences expect it to deliver high-quality programming that is informative and educational about science in general and, therefore, about climate change in particular.’ David Jordan the BBC’s Director of Editorial Policy

With the railway now open at Dawlish a very fitting time to link this statement into their coverage. I also put that the Head of the IPCC was a railway engineer.

Andrew Miller’s attack on our right to free speech is a disgrace. Why are there apparently no MPs of enough stature and integrity left who are prepared to stand up and say this or any attempt to stifle differing opinions is wrong and is against the rights and customs of this country? Miller should be removed from the SciTech committee.

because the answer to the issue of climate change is to tax everyone else and to control where, how, when and how often the plebs travel. So long as the MPs and their friends aren’t negatively impacted nothing will be said. I couldn’t think of anything worse for an MP, BBC executive or Celebrity than having to share the same space as one of the great unwashed.

There are at least two Parliamentarians who are also scientists, but Graham Stringer and Peter Lilly rarely appear on the BBC, and Peter Lilly seemed to have been told that it was the Editorial Policy of the BBC to bar him and other scientists because they are classed as sceptics by the BBC.

Graham Stringer is a lonely presence on the Science and Technology Committee, outvoted by the warmist non-scientists on the Committee.

But on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, he and Lilley have more influence.

But it is with the influence of at least two members of the Media, Culture and Sport Select Committee, that Mensa members seem to be arranging the demise of the BBC.

As for the statement “Although we do not have specific evidence of climate change itself”

Well, Astronomers do, but are kept of the BBC because they are classed as “sceptical” scientists by the left-wing non-scientists at the BBC, and all because the facts are all to controversial for them, either that or they are ignorant of the facts.

But “sceptical” is a dogmatic word used in religion. In science, a fact is more important than a belief in man made climate change, because it can prove the fantasies of the Warmist morons, wrong, and proven wrong.

The problem with the Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph is that they rely on the same scientists for there articles, these scientists seem not to be up-to-date with the science, apart from Nigel Calder.

But climate science at the BBC is 200 years behind the times, due to censorship of science, by the BBC non-scientists.

The Telegraph (printed version) is 95% warmist if you look at the balance of its reporting and features. The only lone sceptical voice is Christopher Booker and his Sunday column is not exclusively about ‘climate change’, nor does it even feature every week.

However…….David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC, told them that “politicians driving an issue and talking about its importance and policy developments in relation to it will be clearly important to our news agenda”

Clearly, politicians, except politicians with hard science backgrounds, are clearly the majority in the concensus that we keep hearing about.

Global Warming – the greatest fraud of all time. Its now renamed itself as Climate Change when it became evident that there was no Global Warming, man made or otherwise.

This fraud was not perpetrated by enviro-fanatic “scientists” – they were merely oot soldiers. Fanatics maybe, but they have no power to implement policy or direct research funding. This was, from first to last, a scheme by the government to raise revenue with no strings attached, and the added feel-good bonus that they were saving the planet on data provided by “scientists”. This also meant that they could exercise power over the whole economy without recourse to outdated and ineffective state control methods of the USSR.

In all crime, real or drama, the first question to ask is who profits from the crime. The answer – the government treasury. As the treasury swells, it allows ministers to do what is the only real perk of the job – excercise power via control and patronage.

“We acknowledge the difficulty for broadcasters in maintaining coverage of climate change when the basic facts are established and the central story remains the same.”

I would love it if the “facts” were facts. Every time the BBC or the Met Office tell us something is a “fact” – we are having more floods, unprecedented weather etc. – it turns out that that it is not the case when, with a little bit of research, the past is examined properly.

Catch them out in one lie and how is one expected to believe anything else they tell us is true.

The morons at the BBC, always confuse facts with assumptions, speculation and belief.

Its how I started on this, I asked for details for the calibration of carbon dioxide warming, and they sent me a computer model based on guess work, and not the results from an Atmospheric chamber.

An Atmospheric chamber has four or five sides, so cannot simulate a one sided atmosphere, so there are no bloody results from an Atmospheric chamber.

So until the proxy relationship in the carbon dioxide atmosphere of Venus came through, scientists only could guess, but now the whole carbon emissions madness is undermined by the fact that CO2 warming is effectively zero.

‘The BBC always tell us, as indeed it does above, that its independence is paramount.’
Yes they do.
That what they say is now often not supported by actual fact rather makes the repetition indicative of something other than a commitment to education and information.
Such as propaganda and censorship.
The twin pillars supporting the beliefs of a chap who, like the BBC, saw ‘telling it often enough’ as convincing.
And if you didn’t fall in line, there were escalating state sanctions in place to ‘encourage’ support.
Poor historical precedent.

Copenhagen…2009-Global warming nutjobs marooned there, due to snow and blizzards not letting them fly home.

Antarctica 2013-Aussie Green freak quack and his pirates from the BBC/Guardian and cheridees stuck in the thick ice thereabouts-and loads of Chinese types had to risk their lives to get them back for the symposium on The End of all Ice” in time for the 10 O Clock News in Auckland Uni!
I`ve yet to see a cartoon about either event..but the ones in my head cheer me up whenever the Green Jeanies blow hard on such guff…hence I don`t listen to a word that they say-any of them.
UEA/ClimateGate 2009 finished them-left them all dead in the ice bucket!

In the Radio 4 piece – at the very end of the conversation Andrew Miller gave the green light to “investigative journalism” – the central issue, however, is that the BBC barely ever scrutinise the IPCC, even though IPCC reports hold great influence over governments.

The BBC’s standard response is that there are “no sceptical scientists available” to challenge the IPCC consensus – whereas the onus should not be on “bloggers” to supply sceptical scientists for debate – instead BBC journalists need to educate themselves, such that they can scrutinise IPCC themselves – rather than broadcasting IPCC reports verbatim as they currently do.

Where are the Panorama or Newsnight reports which dig into the validity of the IPCC and there output? There are none.

If climate is so important, with respect government priorities and expenditure – why does the BBC not scrutinise IPCC outputs and also the priority which government are treating these findings?

It is not hard for the BBC to find information against which they could scrutinise the IPCC – the internet is riddled with expert content which would inform BBC journalists – if they could be bothered.

One can only conclude that the BBC are biased and purposefully seek to promote the IPCC and their aims.

Donna LaFramboise did an excellent one-man job of scrutinising the IPCC and the result – her book ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ – was dynamite (or would have been had our warmist national broadcaster not chosen to ignore it).

So one lone woman journalist can do the job several thousand of ‘the world’s best’ can’t. Funny that.

The problem of censorship at the BBC towards climate sceptics exists not because of ‘the science’ but because of the politics. The BBC is a hopelessly left wing organisation; it shares all the same common purpose aims as its chums in the EU and the UN – a federalised, collectivist vision of an agrarian ‘sustainable’ future where all the nasty, criminal fossil fuels (the same ones that bring light, warmth, prosperity, infrastructure, employment and good health to so many billions around the world) have been outlawed and we’ve all been packed off to the fields to toil ceaselessly beneath rows of giant, reproachful wind turbines.

The BBC needs CAGW to remain a ‘truth’, regardless of the…er, truth. CAGW feeds into the ‘need’ for ‘global action’, for massive ‘green’ taxes; it allows progressives to ‘nudge’ us all towards their preferred version of the future.

The BBC will never stop broadcasting this propaganda until it is forced out of the cosy public sector and made to justify its worth – and its very existence – on the open commercial broadcasting market.

The Today ‘interview’ that you refer to (not an interview but a chat between people of like minds) was an appalling, troubling piece of choreography and manipulation. But of course I would expect nothing else of Davies, and Jordan has a track record of dismissing the concerns of the great unwashed. Remember his dismissive, patronising response to Savile, protecting the BBC and trying to wash his and the BBC’s hands of the whole business.

One Guido Fawkes commentator described that ‘interview’ as ‘sinister’. Quite right.

BBC sending hundreds of staff to cover Sochi. No doubt hundreds again to cover the World Cup. Marcus Brigstock travelling overseas to be on a winter sports competition. Endless climate summits with all participants and their minions attending in person. No video conferencing for them. Cameron having his papers driven in his Jag 500 metres to his office.
CRISIS WHAT CRISIS?

Just remind me – what are Alan’s scientific credentials? It’s hard to tell as he doesn’t post under his full name (is it even his real one?).

He often gives the impression that his greatest skill is copying, pasting, and then applying bold text to text that he knows will rile and provoke his fellow Biased BBCers. But his consistent sneering never seems to be based on any specialist knowledge.

‘what are Alan’s scientific credentials? It’s hard to tell as he doesn’t post under his full name’
If his second was Turing would that help you more? Or make zero difference to the content and power of the argument presented if relevant and sound?
Looks like it’s going to be a long weekend if this opening salvo, pulling a Clegg and ignoring every single fact posted and gunning straight for the author, sees the TGIF shift logging on, whilst definitely not using sneering, oh no. And highlighting the process of copying and pasting text designed to rile on a forum discussing BBC techniques is brave. But the BBC does tend to prefer “quotes” more to provoke an entire nation. Not really the remit of a force-funded national broadcaster though.
So you have rather poisoned the well this session and stuffed your fellow Flokkers, especially those rummaging in the Borg box, plus your best buds at Aunty, all in one para.
So well done you. Well worth the outing.

‘Scientists’ like those who attended the BBC’s secret 28gate meeting? Or like Michael Mann, he of the falsified ‘hockey stick’ graph? Or any number of Climategate ‘scientists’ who refused to divulge their data and methods for fear they might come under scrutiny by other scientists?

But no one is stopping you scott or suggesting you shouldn’t not even from the freedom loving left.
You could be the new George Monbiot (M.A. in zoology) or Roger Harrabin (studied English at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge ) you have as much qualification in climate science as them.

Are those the awards where the organisers tried to rig things because the ‘wrong’ folk were winning the category vote, but it backfired (getting to be a habit with anti-democratic entities) and they simply won elsewhere anyway?
Anyway, next year they are getting the QT Production Team to ‘oversee’ things, so it should be sorted. Assuming Ian Katz is not allowed anywhere near.

‘Sorry if that difference is too difficult for you to grasp.’
Phew, and here was me worried you may have missed the irony of your berating someone for making sneering comments. Such hypocrisy clearly takes a specialist.
The BBC today carried a story about the police being set targets for arrests, which some (myself included) expressed concerns about, as it seems justice may be ill-served if box-ticking trumped reality and legal common sense.
The same must surely apply elsewhere.
Are you in precedent suggesting a quota on articles critical of the BBC based not on the BBC erring in its professional obligations and abilities, but on an arbitrary limit set by…. you?
That’s so crazy it might just work.
As a W1A episode.
Or anything the BBC may indeed try rigging in reality.
The BBC ‘berating’ individuals or groups doing or saying things you and/or or the BBC don’t happen to like would, one is sure, be exempted as per normal?

Why not get some Scott?…I`ve got an old BSc you could borrow if you`re feeling a bit inadequate!
Failing that-Watts up with that, Bishop Hill, Chris Booker-and so many others-do it all so much better-go have a look and learn!
Fine thing the internet….maybe a “Paypal” donate button next to your blogs might encourage us to pay to send you to college.

You don’t have to be a scientist to work out that the IPCC is not exclusively a scientific body, nor that it is heavily staffed with environmentalists, nor that its Summary For Policymakers is not a scientific report.

Nor do you need to be scientist to work out that the fear and scaremongering about ‘rapid warming’ and ‘tipping points’ and all manner of apocalyptic happenings based on primitive climate modelling have been proven by real world evidence to be a crock of shite.

And I guess, in your line of work, you don’t have to be a producer or director to appreciate and be critical of film and TV.

So please try debating the subject rather than trying to censor people because they are not ‘scientists’.

1) Rather than answer a legitimate question, Biased BBC commenters think it better to insult me, and then play the victim card – AGAIN;
2) Questioning someone’s bona fides is some bizarre definition of “censorship”.

Well, at least you lot are consistent. Not particularly honest or constructive, but consistent.

“Miller is not a scientist, and definitley not a climate change scientist”
“Harrabin is moonlighting from his real expertise as an English graduate”
“what are McGrath’s scientific qualifications?”
“I could go on… if we are to label all those who are interviewed on the BBC I’d be quite happy with that”

That’s just from this post alone. It’s not the first time he’s sought to dismiss people based on his own (it has to be said, somewhat sketchy) appraisal of their background.

So it appears Alan is quite happy to question others’ credentials. But simply asking the question of him – WAH WAH CENSORSHIP.

‘I don’t profess to have any. But nor do I post 2+ articles a day berating scientists.’

I replied:

‘‘Scientists’ like those who attended the BBC’s secret 28gate meeting? Or like Michael Mann, he of the falsified ‘hockey stick’ graph? Or any number of Climategate ‘scientists’ who refused to divulge their data and methods for fear they might come under scrutiny by other scientists?

You’re out of your depth, Scott.’

a) Why do you feel insulted by that, or is taking offence just a safe place for you to hide when the going gets a bit tough?

b) Why do you think the scientists I refer to are beyond criticism (and whose climate models have failed big time, by the way, in case you haven’t quite grasped that point), given their record of secrecy, fraud and failure?

c) The IPCC is not exclusively a scientific body. Their ‘Summary for Policymakers’ which is the headline document used to brief the press, is constructed painstakingly line by line by the scientists, politicians and environmental groups including Friends of the Earth. That is a fact and that is not science.

A bit less obfuscation and a bit more engagement with the topic please, Scott, otherwise you are just making yourself look foolish.

Attempting to impose censorship via the ‘if you’re not a scientist you can’t possibly know the first thing about climate change’ ploy (remember, you entered this thread with ‘Just remind me – what are Alan’s scientific credentials? It’s hard to tell as he doesn’t post under his full name (is it even his real one?).’

Not good enough. If you attempt to engage in debating my points above – fine – otherwise, goodnight and God bless.

Just got a bit of the BBCs licensed rebel Roger Bolton and his stool grooming Feedback(more like Blowback?..Suck up?).
Some BBC bigwig (David Jordan) tells him that the BBC have been unfairly accused of giving equal weight to “The Sceptics” as they do to “The Experts”(or at least the same level of scrutiny to “The Science”).
Jordan says its unfair in that the BBC never have or never will give credence to The Deniers”….as if none of us had ever thought otherwise.
Still-it`s official now-the BBC may have once given a front to the notion of “impartiality”…and pretended that it did so…but now we know they never did-and it was official policy, known at the higher levels..where the sun is cooling and is up Jonathan Porrits bottom as a consequence.
The BBC-the UEA-IPCC…simply JWs but with no chance of redemption!

I heard this piece of faux-confessional delivered by Bolton in the most casual, matter-of-fact manner Hannibal Lecter could only dream of emulating.

They played back messages left by a couple of listeners which went along the lines of ‘…pleased MPs have called for the BBC be brought into line on this….climate change is real and the public need to move on….deniers should not be given any airtime on the BBC….etc’

And we had the usual shite that the BBC have been giving oodles of airtime to denier-non-scientists (and they are always non-scientists, according to the ‘impartial’ BBC) like Lawson, when the truth is he is the only sceptic they feel comfortable having on because his bag is adaptation rather than destroying the warming myth – plus it allows them oh so subtly to imply he’s a lone voice.

This is an excellent piece by Alan, and shows up our politicians and national broadcaster for the anti-democratic, ignorant and totalitarian bigots that they are.

Be well worth while checking up on these phone-in merchants to Feedback in connection with “Climate Change”.
When they were lined up to berate Nigel Lawsons appearance on Today they all seemed to be called Fiona or Giles from Virginia Water or Bath.
Does the BBC have a pool of these suckups-and are they the same ones who affect working class accents to berate the bedroom tax or lack of funding of Surestart, when called upon to do so.
Radio doesn`t hide the Equity mockney any longer….Ronnie Ancona and Alistair McGrath could do the lot of `em for all I know.
Hugh Dennis does Jimmy Savile , but seems not to be needed anymore for that…Showaddywaddy indeed!

Great to remind ourselves about the previous life of Fatty Bacon and the luscious Konnie Huq…who let us all down far more when she shacked up with Charlie Brooker.
Let`s hope Bacon doesn`t get asked to do anything from the USA-I do hope that we`ve told the US Embassy.
And how long does cocaine stay on the old brain there-Bacon always seems a bit wired with a short attention span!
Just say no kids!

And the Royal Society’s motto continues to be nullius in verba – which roughly translates as ‘on the word of no-one’.

So in theory it can take just one scientist, or two (e.g. as in the case of the cause of stomach ulcers) to change mainstream scientific opinion (not a ‘consensus’ has ever been proven for climate science – we have just been told that it is so by the alarmists).

Now there are lots of scientists out there who disagree with the alarmist position, though according to Royal Society principles, it need take only one. So why does the Society ignore them and insist the science is ‘settled’? I reckon the BBC should investigate.

The NIPCC produce excellent reports based on the scientific literature, but they do not feature much (if at all?) on the BBC. Is this because they give the lie to the notion of an all but total consensus of scientists on climate issues? The NIPCC reports reveal just how selective and prejudiced the IPCC ones are.

It’s what we’ve been observing for years. This confirms that they’re doing it consciously to justify their lies. I don’t think they have a clue as to how it will end though, and how people will eventually deal with the arrogance, corruption, and outright evil displayed.

It’s a step away from totalitarian rule, deciding that people don’t have to be told anything at all, and whatever the government decides will be enforced, regardless of real public need or good.

Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists in a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, take it as a given that both the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the problem of climate change. But unlike the majority of their colleagues in academe – who primly deny that any such problem exists – they go one step further by actively endorsing dishonesty as a way of forcing through (apparently) desirable public policy.

Admittedly not BBC pages, or even those approved by them, but for some it is still possible to refer to sources beyond the BBC and assess value on the levels of objectivity and persuasiveness of argument used.
Something I do regularly with BBC favourite Bob Ward, who sadly seldom impresses in substance or delivery.